Global Flood Evidence: A Place For Faith to Present Some

In all honesty, folks, I don't know what the use is challenging Faith for evidence of the Flood. And in fact, I'm surprised the 'debate' has gone this far. Faith does not require evidence to support her (his? I'm still new here) belief, as I think she made quite obvious in this thread. To her, evidence is only secondary. If the evidence contradicts the Bible, the latter wins by default. So really, what's the point in challenging her? Mention the layered forests in Nova Scotia or the existence of angular uncomformities -- the answer is always going to be "whatever" from someone who puts faith in a literal reading of Genesis before tangible evidence.
And to Faith: if you're not going to actually deal with the evidence, but instead just shrug it off, then what's the point of addressing these science forums? What do you feel is the point of arguing for 'scientific creationism' if ultimately the words of the Bible win you over every time? Your position is entirely theological, so I do not understand why you bother doing battle on scientific grounds.

quote:

---

I HAVE dealt with the evidence many many times on this forum, and for a person to come along who is brand new here and make judgments like yours is completely uncalled for.

---

I don't think it is. I don't even need to read any further than this one thread to know where you stand. I may be new, but your arguments are old.
But if my judgment is uncalled for, then tell me I'm wrong. Tell me that you do not put theology before science. You've already said above that "the Bible is right whenever there is a conflict." So again, what's the point in even subscribing to 'scientific creationism' when you ultimately don't care what the science part has to say? Science is a double-edged sword, but you wield it like it only cuts one way. For this reason, there is no debating with you. Now tell me I'm wrong.
Or better yet, prove to me I'm wrong. Tell me what 'scientific creationism' has to say about the multi-layered, rooted lycopod forests in Joggins, Nova Scotia. Or tell me what it has to say about angular unconformities in the rock record. Or tell me about your perspective concerning the distribution of trace fossils as they occur throughout the geologic column. If you've answered these concerns elsewhere, please tell me where; if not, please address them here. And if you have nothing to say to these issues, then please do not shrug them off as I have seen you do in other threads by pretending that the details don't matter. Instead, do yourself a favour and research them so that you can come back here and shut me up.

quote:

---

Why can't the global existence of fossils be considered evidence of a world wide flood?

---

In theory, it could be. A global flood most certainly would leave a global fossil record. The problem is, the sort of geologic scenario predicted within the framework of such a Flood is NOT observed in the fossil record. We don't get the kind of fossil sorting predicted by Henry Morris. Nor do we get the same grain sorting that we would expect (continuous fining upward). The problems with the Flood interpretation of the geologic column are in the details... which is more than likely why Faith keeps insisting that we stand back and look at the big picture. Question: if a global flood really did occur that covered the tops of the highest mountains, then why do we have fossilized footprints from terrestrial animals preserved throughout the rock record?

quote:

---

How does the localization of fossil species argue against a world wide flood?

---

For one thing, because dead bodies float. The waters of the Flood would have been teeming with the bloating, gassy carcasses of 99.999999% of all life on earth. These would have a tendency to float around and spread out; not stay put.

quote:

---

Why is that evidence against the world wide flood.

---

In itself, it is not evidence against a worldwide flood. It is simply another plausible explanation as to how the fossils got there. And it musn't be ignored.

quote:

---

What are the geological columns and how is the flood inconsistent with that stratification. Also could you explain stratification in simple terms?

---

Could write a book trying to answer this question. Simply put, stratification is simply the layering of sediments as they are deposited in either terrestrial or marine environments. Different environments deposit sediments in different ways (e.g. compare deltaic, fluvial, and aeolian deposits, etc.). We see these different deposits in the rock record, but the global Flood scenario cannot explain them. How do we get aeolian deposits (i.e. desert deposits) in the middle of a global flood?

quote:

---

Why is the presence of extinct forms not evidence of the global flood?

---

It could be, if you were able to show that every animal in the fossil record died at the same time.

Faith, IIRC, you said yourself in a debate with Moose that the geologic column is highly subject to fallible human interpretation and therefore should serve little use in arguing for or against the Flood.(You say it several times here: http://EvC Forum: Two Different Stories About the Creation - Faith and Moose only -->EvC Forum: Two Different Stories About the Creation - Faith and Moose only)Would you admit, then, that perhaps your interpretation that the fossil record was "clearly" deposited over a period of months is also fallible?

Any chance we can have Faith banned from these science forums again? If not for the reason that she is obviously uninterested in science, then because as a Christian, I find her ad hoc attacks on just about everyone highly insulting and disrespective of the faith. I don't want hers being the single loudest 'Christian' voice in these threads.
Or we can just keep things going the way they are...

Hey! My prayer was just answered! There's your strongest evidence for God right there, folks. This message has been edited by Mallon, Mar-07-2006 03:11 PM

Faith said:

quote:

---

Floodists may think along lines of the layers' representing sediments and living things from different originating geographic areas that were conveyed in different water currents to their final location.

---

Here's a MAJOR problem with that line of thought: trace fossils. Can things like footprints, dinosaur nests, burrows, etc. be "conveyed" in a massive flood while still retaining their perfect shape? The answer is: no, they can't. The fossils are in situ. Of course, I don't expect Faith to answer to this since she doesn't care, but I'm just throwing this out there for some of our other creationist readers to mull over.

Jazzns brings up an excellent point. Just to reinforce: gradualism, as we use it today, is not the same as it was used 100+ years ago. When we refer to "the present as the key to the past" we mean that the processes we see in the world today were likely occurring in the world before we ever showed up. This includes instances of both rapid and slow sediment deposition. The burden of proof is on the shoulders of anyone who suggests otherwise.

Faith said:

quote:

---

Yes, the pre-flood world is usually thought to have had no high mountains and that all the mountain ranges were formed as a result of tectonic activity set in motion during the Flood.

---

This is contrary to the Bible. See Genesis 7:19.
Your "theory" is internally inconsistent and therefore refutes itself. Read Kosso's "Reading the Book of Nature."This message has been edited by Mallon, Mar-10-2006 02:03 PM

Faith said:

quote:

---

It is rude of you to give a reference without quoting it or linking it

---

It is lazy of you not to look it up yourself.

quote:

---

but I assume that the Bible quote most likely refers to the landing of the ark on Ararat.

---

No. It refers to the fact that the Flood covered "all the high mountains under the entire heavens". Again, your theory as it stands is bankrupt.This message has been edited by Mallon, Mar-10-2006 02:13 PM

I did supply you with a reference. I gave you the exact verse to look up. As a Christian, I thought you might have a Bible handy. Certainly with access to the Internet, you do.

quote:

---

But you are no scholar.

---

How many papers do you have under your belt? I've a few.This message has been edited by Mallon, Mar-10-2006 02:19 PMThis message has been edited by Mallon, Mar-10-2006 02:19 PM

Faith wrote:

quote:

---

Another boorish communication. It covered all the highest mountains at a mere depth of FIFTEEN CUBITS. Look it up.

---

Perhaps you should read it again (congrats on finding the passage, by the way). The mountains were covered in 15 cubits of water (i.e. tops of the high mountains were 6.9 meters beneath the surface of the water). This does not imply the mountains were only 15 cubits tall.This message has been edited by Mallon, Mar-10-2006 02:18 PM

Ringo wrote:

quote:

---

To be fair, I read it the same way Faith does - that the water rose 15 cubits, i.e. the total depth of water was 15 cubits.

---

I guess it depends on the version of the Bible used. In this case, the NIV, which I am using, contradicts the KJV.
In any case, say the water was only 15 cubits deep... and yet the ark was 30 cubits tall... this thing would have nearly been scraping the bottom of the inundated ground! Certainly, it would have been smashing into the sides of the barely-covered mini-mountains.